臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究主要探討沸水式反應器在功率提升狀態下的穩定性分析。核能電廠功率提升大致分為三種層級：MUR（Measurement Uncertainty Recapture）；SPU（Stretch Power Uprate）以及EPU（Extended Power Uprate）。在此參考國外成功提升功率的電廠所提出的報告內容，而本文就其中的穩定性問題部份加以探討，其中包括功率提升後的爐心狀態以及進入不穩定區時所應採取的防護措施。在本論文中我們根據核二廠一號機以及核一廠二號機的爐心資料，利用LAPUR5.2分析工具去分析計算出核二廠一號機以及核一廠二號機功率提升後的四個運轉點。並藉由分析後所得到的結果，綜合國外電廠提升功率的經驗，評估我國電廠小幅度提升功率所可能遭遇的穩定性問題。
由分析後的結果知道，小幅度的提升功率，衰減比率皆不會超過0.8，甚至低於0.8甚多，因此我們知道，小幅度的提升功率並不會對穩定性造成影響。

For a nuclear power plant (NPP), there are three power uprate levels: Measurement Uncertainty Recapture (MUR), Stretch Power Uprat (SPU), and Extended Power Uprate (EPU). The purpose of this study is to analyze the stability of a light water reactor which is under power uprate condition (MUR).

In this study, we are focusing on the stability issue such as monitoring the status of a power uprated core and the precautions against the operation point entering the unstable region, etc. The computer code --- LAPUR5.2 is chosen as the tool for calculation. Based on the data from KuoSheng (Unit I) and ChinShan (Unit II) nuclear power plants, four operation points are calculated by LAPUR5.2 for assumed power uprate tasks. These simulation results are compared with the results from other U.S. NPPs which have successful experience in power uprate. Some stability problems which may take place in Taiwan’s NPP during the power uprate tasks are discussed in this study.

The research results show that a limited power uprate (MUR), usually within 2% of the core power level, will not make the decay ratio exceed 0.8. In many simulation cases the decay ratio is much less than 0.8. Therefore, it is certain that MUR can hardly affect the stability of a nuclear power plant.

中文摘要
ABSTRACT
致謝辭
目錄
表目錄
圖目錄

第一章 前言

第二章 文獻回顧
2.1 沸水式核能電廠之不穩定性質
2.1.1 雙相流不穩定現象
2.1.2 不穩定性的機制
2.1.3 時域與頻域簡介
2.1.4 研究方法
2.1.4.1 實驗方法
2.1.4.2 時域方法
2.1.4.3 頻域方法
2.1.5 長程解決方案
2.2 國外電廠功率提升現況
2.2.1 國外電廠提升功率方法
2.2.2 國外核能電廠提升功率的穩定性問題

第三章 LAPUR5.2 方法論介紹
3.1 簡介
3.2 使用程式
3.2.1 LAPUR5.2程式介紹
3.2.2 LAPUR5.2之方法論運算過程
3.2.2.1 爐心組成的建立
3.2.2.2 LAPURX輸入資料的形成
3.2.2.3 SIMULATE-3運行反應度擾動計算
3.2.2.4 LAPURW輸入資料的形成
3.2.2.5 爐心穩定性評估
3.2.2.6 輸出結果

第四章 分析工具比較
4.1 STAIF簡介
4.2 STAIF分析流程簡介
4.3 LAPUR與STAIF衰減比率分析結果比較
4.3.1 核二廠一號機Cycle 18衰減比率0.8與0.9六個點分析結果比較
4.3.2 核一廠二號機Cycle 22衰減比率0.8與0.9十個點分析結果比較

第五章 分析案例
5.1 核二廠一號機Cycle 18穩定性分析
5.2 核一廠二號機Cycle 22穩定性分析

第六章 結論

參考資料

附錄A

1. T.H.J.J. Van Der Hagen, D.D.B. Van Bragt, F.J. Van Der Kaa, 1997, Exploring the Dodewaard Type-I and Type-II Stability; From Start-Up to Shut-down, From Stable to Unstable, Ann. Nucl. Energy, Vol. 24 No. pp.659-669.

2. A.K. Nayak, P.K. Vijayan, D. Saha, V. Venkat Raj, M, Aritomi, 2002, Study on the Stability Behavior of a Natural Circulation Pressure Tube Type Boiling Water Reactor, Nuclear Engineering and Design 215 pp.127-137.

3. J. March-Leuba and P. J. Otaduy, “A Comparison of BWR Stability measurements with calculations using the code LAPUR-ΙV”, ORNL/TM-8546, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, January 1983.

4. Cheristofer M. Mowry, 1994. Operational control of boiling water reactor stability. Nuclear Technology Vol. 109, pp. 412-428

5. Anderson, T.T., 1970, Hydraulic impedance: A tool for predicting boiling loop stability, Nucl. Appl. & Tech., vol.9, pp.422-433.

6. Carmichael, L. A., Neimi, R. O., 1978, Transient and Stability test at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Unit 2 at end of cycle 2, EPRI NP-564.

7. Woffinden, F. B. and Niemi, R. O., 1981, Low-flow stability tests at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Unit 2 at end of cycle 3, EPRI NP-972.

8. Enomoto, T., Muto, S., Ishizuka, T., Tanabe, A., Mitsutake, T. and Sakurai, M., 1985, Thermal Hydraulic Stability Experiments in Rod Bundle, Proceedings of the Third Int. Topical Meeting on Reactor Thermal Hydraulics, Newport, R. I., USA, Vol. 1, Paper 9.B.

9. W.J.M. de Kruijf, T. Sengstag, D.W. de Haas, T.H.J.J. van der Hagen, 2004, Experimental Theermohydraulic Stability Map of a Frenon-12 Boilig Water Reactor Facility with High Exit Friction, Nuclear Engineer and Design 229 75-80.

10. Meyer, J. E. and Rose, R. P., 1963, Application of a Momentum Integral Model to the Study of Parallel Channel Boiling Flow Oscillation, J, Heat Trans. ASME.

11. Yokomizo, O., 1983, Time-Domain Analysis of BWR Core Stability J. Nucl. Sci, and Tech., Vol. 20[1], pp. 63-76.

12. March-Leuba, J., Pere, R. B. and Cacuci, D. G., 1984, Calculation of Limit Cycle Amplitudes in Commercial Boiling Water Reactors, Trans. Am. Nucl. Soc., Vol. 46.

13. Wallis, G. B. and Heasly, J. H., 1961, Oscillation in Two-Phase Flow Systems, J. Heat Transfer, ASME, pp. 363-369.

14. Lahey, R. T. and Moody, F. J., 1977, The Thermal Hydraulics of a Boiling Water Nuclear Reactor, American Nuclear Society, Hinsdale, I11.

15. “STAIF-a computer program for BWR stability analysis in the frequency domain”, EMF-CC-074(P)(A), 1994.

16. Akitoshi Hotta, Hisahi Ninokata, Hiroyuki Takeuchi, 1997, Development of BWR Regional Instability Model and Verification Based on RIGHALS 1 Test. Ann. Nucl. Energy, Vol. 24 No. 17 pp. 1403-1427.

17. Akitoshi Hotta, Hisahi Ninokata, Hiroyuki Takeuchi, 2000 “Regional instability evaluation of Ringhals unit 1 based on extended frequency domain model” Nuclear Engineer and Design 200 pp.201-220.

18. ”BWR OWNERS GROUP long-term stability solutions licensing methodology” NEDO-31960-A, 1993.

19. “Methodology and procedure for calculation of core and channel decay ratios with LAPUR”, GN11KI-IN-02.000472.00005, Rev.0, INBERINCO, 2002.

20. Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, “Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Related to Amendment no. 156 to Facility Operating License no. NPF-29 Entergy Operations, inc., et al. Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Docket no. 50-416”, October 2002

21. Hatch Nuclear Plant , ”Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Related to Amendment no. 238 to Renewed Facility Operating License DPR-57 and Amendment no. 180 to Renewed Facility Operating License NPF-5 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, inc., et al. Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Docket NOS. 50-321 and 50-366”, September , 2003

22. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, ”Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Related to Amendment no. 247 to Facility Operating License no. DPR-44 and Amendment no. 250 to Facility Operating License no. DPR-56 Exelon Generation Company, llc pceg Nuclear llc Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 Docket NOS. 50-277 and 50-278”, April 10, 2003

23. Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station,”Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Related to Amendment no. 201 to Facility Operating License no. DPR-35 Entergy Nuclear Generation Company Entergy Nuclear Operations, inc. Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Docket no. 50-293,May 9, 2003

24. River Bend Station,”Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Related to Amendment no. 129 to Facility Operating License no. NPF-47 Entergy Operations, inc. River Bend Station, Unit 1 Docket no. 50-458”, January 31, 2003

25. Detroit Edison Company, ”United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Related to Amendment no. 87 to Facility Operating License no. NPF-43 Detroit Edison Company Fermi-2 Docket no. 50-341”, September 9, 1992

26. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, ”Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Related to Amendment no. 198 to Facility Operating License no. DPR-44 Philadelphia Electric Company Public Service Electric and Gas Company Delmarva Power and Light Company Atlantic City Electric Company Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 2 Docket no. 50-277”, October 18, 1994

27. Washington Public Power Supply System ,”Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Related to Amendment no. 137 to Facility Operating License no. NPF-21 Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Project no. 2 Docket no. 50-397”, May 2, 1995

28. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant ,”Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Related to Amendment no. 222 to Facility Operating License no. DPR-71 and Amendment no. 247 to Facility Operating License no. DPR-62 Carolina Power & Light Company Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 Docket NOS. 50-325 and 50-324, May 31, 2002

29. Clinton Power Station, ”Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Related to Amendment no. 149 to Facility Operating License no. NPF-62 Amergen Energy Company, llc Clinton Power Station, Unit 1 Docket no. 50-461”, April 5, 2002

30. Dresden Nuclear Power Station, ”Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Related to Amendment no. 191 to Facility Operating License no. DPR-19 and Amendment no. 185 to Facility Operating License no. DPR-25 Exelon Generation Company, llc Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3 Docket NOS. 50-237 and 50-249” December 21, 2001

31. Duane Arnold Energy Center, ”Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Related to Amendment no. 243 to Facility Operating License no. DPR-49 Nuclear Management Company, llc Duane Arnold Energy Center Docket no. 50-331” November 6, 2001

32. Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, “Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Related to Amendment no. 202 to Facility Operating License no. DPR-29 and Amendment no. 198 to Facility Operating License no. DPR-30 Exelon Generation Company, llc and Midamerican Energy Company Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 Docket NOS. 50-254 and 50-265”, December 21, 2001

33. 林浩慈、王仲容、施純寬、謝昌倫、邱茗秀，”EXAVERA程式建立與驗證”，中華民國九十四年九月，INER-OM-0762R。

34. 林浩慈、王仲容、黃國修、陳昱中、陳佩琪、羅芳琪、施純寬、謝昌倫、邱茗秀、林紋仕、江授全、翁烔立、周鈴曜，”沸水式反應器穩定性拉普（LAPUR）分析技術發展與應用”，中華民國九十五年三月，INER-A0948R。

35. 王仲容，”雙相流穩定性時域分析模式之建立與應用”，中華民國八十二年五月。

36. 曾文煌，”沸水式反應器穩定性的頻域分析”，中華民國八十年六月十四日。